SMT. DEOKALI versus NAND KISHORE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 24-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SMT. DEOKALI 
v. 
NAND KISHORE AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 1996 
IN.P. SINGH AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
Will-Validity of-Alleged suspicious circumstances in execution of 
will-Found not correct by Trial Court as well as the first Appellate 
Cow1-High Court affirmed the decree of cow1s below-Appeal before 
Supreme Court-Held as the case was decided basically on facts there was 
no reason to intelfere with the judgment of High Court. 
The appellant's father executed a Will on 2.5.1972 whereunder he 
bequeathed his entire moveable and immovable property in favour of his 
D three grandsons-sons of the elder sister of appellant. The appellant filed 
a suit challenging the validity of the Will contending that (i) first page of 
the Will, which was written in two pages, did not bear signatures of the 
testator and the witnesses; (ii) first page of the Will was written on a stamp 
paper while the second page was written on a plain paper; (iii) writer of 
E 
the will did not come forward to give evidence; (iv) will executed on 2.5.72 
was produced for the first time in 1975; (v) will was proved on evidence of 
witnesses who were close relatives of the respondents; and (vi) murder of 
testator by the relatives of the respondents after some days of the execution 
of the Will was very suspicious. 
F 
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit hold-
ing that (i) the signatures of the testator and the witnesses were genuine; 
(ii) there was nothing unusual in signing only the second page of the Will 
or even in writing the Will on two pages, one stamped and the other 
unstamped; (iii) having regard to the fact that the witnesses had signed 
G the Will and some of the persons in whose presence the Will was written 
had given testimony, the failure of the "riter to justify the Will was not 
relevant; and (iv) making only the relatives as witnesses to the Will was 
also not an unnatural practice. The High Court affirmed the judgment and 
decree passed by the courts below. Hence this appeal. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
684 
DEOKALI v. NAND KISHORE [SEN. J.] 
685 
HELD : The High Court has not committed any error in coming to A 
its decision. The case was decided basically on facts. There is no reason to 
interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [688-F-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 367 of 
1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.89 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in S.A. No. 35 of 1983. 
Pramod Swarup for the Appellant. 
B 
S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and Baldev Krishan Satija for the C 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered : 
SEN, J. : The validity of a Will executed by one Shivnarayan is under 
challenge in this case. Shivnarayan's wife had predeceased him. He had D 
two daughters Ramkali aod Deokali. Ramkali had six daughters and three 
sons - Nand Kishore, Santosh and Prakash. Santosh and Prakash were 
minors at the time of execution of the Will. By the will Shivnarayan gave 
all his properties to the three sons of his elder daughter Ramkali. The Will 
was executed on 2.5.1972. Shortly thereafter, sometime in May, 1972, E 
Shivnarayan was shot dead. Banwari Lal, the husband of Deokali and his 
brother Rudra were charged with murder. Banwari Lal was acquitted by 
the court but his brother Rudra was, convicted and sentenced to rigorous 
imprisonment for life by the Sessions court. It appears from the facts 
recorded by the court of Additional District Judge and also the High Court 
that Ramkali after her marriage started living with her father Shivnarayan F 
along with her husband Balaprasad. Alf her children were born in the 
house of Shivnaraya. Shivnarayan had also made arrangements for getting 
one son and one daughter of Ramkali married. Ramkali and her husband 
used to look after Shivnarayan in his old age. 
Deokali, the younger daughter after her marriage used to live with G 
her husband Banwari Lal in the husband's house. Banwari Lal and Deokali 
quarreled with Shivnarayan at the time .of the marriage of Ramkali's 
daughter and demanded half share pf the property of Shivnarayan. The 
people of the village assembled but Shivoarayan refused to give any share 
of his property to them. He said that he had kept Ramkali in his house and H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
that Ramkali and her children had looked after him. He was not satisfied 
with the conduct of Deokali and her husband and he will not give any share 
of his proper

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.